New Mexico Environmental Law Center

EIB Offers Opportunities For Public to Comment on Carbon Caps

2010-08-24T15:04:20Z

Hobbs
September 1, 2:00pm - 8:00 pm
Lea County Event Center
5101 N. Lovington Highway
Hobbs, NM 88420

Clovis
September 2, 2:00pm - 8:00pm
Clovis City Center
Enchantment II Ballroom
801 Schepps Boulevard
Clovis, NM 88101

Farmington
September 8, 2:00pm - 8:00pm
Farmington Civic Center
200 West Arrington, Exhibit Hall 1,
Farmington, NM 87401

The hearing officer will take comments on both proposals on the same day and will bring a court reporter. Copies of the transcripts will be given to the full board.

Enchanted with Carbon Caps

2010-09-01T17:55:07Z

State’s Poorest are Hardest Hit by Environmental Destruction

2010-08-30T16:33:12Z

Final Arguments Presented on New Industrial Dairy Regulations

2010-08-26T22:22:08Z

After a months long hearing process, the Commission now considers the testimony and summaries from the New Mexico dairy industry, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and the Citizens Coalition. The Commission will then decide on the new rules and may adopt the rules later this year. These would be the first regulations ever enacted to govern dairy waste pollution in state waters.

“With two-thirds of our dairies in serious non-compliance with their discharge permits due to groundwater contamination, the Citizens Coalition is asking the WQCC to strengthen the rules proposed to them by the NMED,” states Jonathan Block, New Mexico Environmental Law Center staff attorney representing the Coalition. “We request better public notice requirements for proposed dairies; greater setbacks from residences and populated areas, food crops, state parks, wells and water sources; financial assurances that disasters and/or closure will be responsibly addressed, and a more comprehensive list of pollutants that must be monitored by dairies.”

“The recent egg callback – amounting to at least 500 million eggs potentially contaminated with salmonella – is just one of many recent indicators that the food industry needs better regulation,” adds Rachel Conn, Clean Water Policy Analyst and Circuit Rider for Amigos Bravos.

“Given the magnitude of the pollution problems New Mexico’s industrial dairy operations have created, only by enacting a strong set of regulations can we ensure that public health and safety, private property and water quality of the state will be protected,” says Jerry Nivens, Spokesperson for Caballo Concerned Citizens.

Coalition Members: Amigos Bravos, Caballo Concerned Citizens, Citizens for Dairy Reform, Food & Water Watch and Rio Grande Chapter, Sierra Club.

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

CONTACTS:

Juana Colón,
Communications and Public Education
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
jcolon@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext. 21

Dan Lorimier
Conservation Coordinator
Rio Grande Chapter, Sierra Club
nmchapterstaff@qwestoffice.net

www.nmelc.org

The mission of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center is to protect New Mexico’s natural environment and achieve environmental justice for New Mexico’s communities through legal representation, policy advocacy and public education. The New Mexico Environmental Law Center’s attorneys have handled over 100 critical cases in low-income and minority communities fighting pollution and environmental degradation. The NMELC charges few, if any, fees to its clients, most of who are from Hispanic and Native American communities. The NMELC celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2008. Membership and gifts help New Mexico communities protect their natural environment and their health from toxic pollution, the degrading effects of growth and liabilities created by irresponsible mining. Contact: Sebia Hawkins, Director of Development 505-989-9022, ext. 27.

###

New Mexico Needs To Enact Greenhouse Gas Rules

2010-08-26T15:41:19Z

Will New Mexico be the Next Climate Leader?

2010-08-25T14:05:49Z

New Mexico Could Be A Leader In Capping Carbon Emissions

2010-08-19T22:00:51Z

Climate Change: The Faster We Get on it, The Better for Everyone

2010-08-19T15:14:37Z

I was noticing at that time the difference between what I was hearing in these conversations and what was in the media. To be sure, there have always been reporters in the media whose work was based on science, but there was so much other noise that was based on opinion or wishful thinking. I felt, and still feel, that it’s like we were on the Titanic heading for the iceberg, and all the people on deck are yelling to the captain, ‘Turn hard to the right or we’ll crash,‘ while the people below deck are saying, ‘This boat is perfectly safe, and I’d like some more sugar for my tea.‘

It’s human nature that we think that the way it was when we were young will be the way it is for our kids and their kids. But it’s not like that. It’s human nature to think that what is real is what we see with our five senses, and look, we’ve had a nice rainy summer in Santa Fe, so what’s the problem? It’s human nature not to want regulations—nobody wants to be told what to do. But the situation we’re in is extreme and dangerous, like heading for the iceberg (only by the time we’re done there might not be any icebergs left). We must trust science the way we have to trust a team of doctors who give a diagnosis that we don’t like. It’s better to take the best known treatment than to pretend that the illness not there-even if we’re feeling fine today.

I would like to say in closing, that this is an opportunity for New Mexicans to do three things:
1) do our state’s share to reduce carbon dioxide
2) set an example to the rest of the states that we understand climate change and are doing something about it, which they can then follow until enough states have it, then the feds can take real action
3) foster a clean energy economy in the sunny, windy state of New Mexico. As testimony that will be heard this week will confirm, clean energy generation and efficiency technology is a $500 billion industry already, and will grow into the trillions. New Mexico deserves its share of that pie, and the faster we get on it, the better for everyone.

Greenhouse Gas Cap Proposal Aired at Santa Fe Hearings

2010-08-17T18:30:31Z

NMELC Resumes Role Representing Communities Most Threatened by Climate Change

2010-08-16T23:00:36Z

The proposal, brought forward by New Energy Economy, (a Santa Fe based nonprofit and NMELC client), would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from oil and gas sources (such as refineries, treatment and processing plants) and electricity generating sources (like coal-fired power plants) by 3% per year, if adopted. “In essence, the cost of the cap on pollution is about 1% a year,“ says John Fogarty, President. “The flip side is that it will spur clean energy development, which means jobs. By acting now to cap carbon, New Mexico will show the world that we care about our people and are open for renewable energy business.”

“The overwhelming scientific consensus is that man made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing the current alarming trend in global warming,” states Bruce Frederick, NMELC staff attorney and lead counsel on the case. “If the trend is not stopped or at least slowed, there will be catastrophic consequences for New Mexico, especially for those who are already at an economic disadvantage.”

During today’s hearing, Steve Michel, Chief Counsel for the Energy Program of Western Resource Advocates, testified for the Board’s adoption of the emission cap. He compared industry’s opposition to the proposal as the equivalent of protecting your breakfast while sitting in the dining hall of the Titanic, and ignoring the fact that the ship is sinking.

“This is the most pressing environmental problem in the world and we have to act soon,” says Frederick, “and it makes no sense to wait for others to act first.”

The Board has scheduled hearings on the proposed regulations to continue throughout the week from 8:00 am to 8:30 pm daily. Public comment is being accepted at the hearings between 7:00 pm and 8:00 pm every night. Written comments can be sent to the attention of Joyce Medina at the NM Environment Department., Runnels Bldg. Rm. 2150 N, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87505.

Background

In December 2008, the New Mexico Environmental Law Center filed a Petition to the Board on behalf of New Energy Economy. The petition requests statewide limits on greenhouse gas emissions, calling on oil and gas operators and power plants emitting over 25,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per year, beginning in 2012. The Board initially heard public comment on the petition and scheduled scientific and expert testimony to begin in June 2010.

However, on January 13, 2010, industry groups, utilities, and four state legislators filed a lawsuit in Lea County to stop the Board from hearing the Petition, arguing that the Board had no authority to even consider the Petition. On April 13th, District Judge Shoobridge adopted all of the industry groups’ arguments and ordered the Board to halt consideration of the Petition.

The NMELC appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court on behalf of New Energy Economy. On June 7, 2010 the court overruled Judge Shoobridge’s decision and ordered him to dissolve the preliminary injunction that halted the Board’s proceedings and to dismiss the case.

www.nmelc.org

The mission of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center is to protect New Mexico’s natural environment and achieve environmental justice for New Mexico’s communities through legal representation, policy advocacy and public education. The NMELC’s effective legal advocacy and representation on environmental and environmental justice issues will protect New Mexico’s communities and cultures, and ensure clean air, land and water for all. The NMELC charges few, if any, fees to its clients, most of who are from Hispanic and Native American communities. The NMELC celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2008. Membership and gifts help New Mexico communities protect their natural environment and their health from toxic pollution. Contact: Sebia Hawkins, Director of Development 505-989-9022, ext. 27.

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

CONTACTS:
Juana Colón,
Communications and Public Education
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
jcolon@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext 21

New Energy Economy GHG Regulation Summary

2010-08-13T17:43:32Z

1 - Beginning in 2012, stationary sources (electricity generation or oil and gas facilities) in New Mexico with CO2 emissions exceeding 25,000 mtons/year would be required to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 3% per year from 2010 levels. Electricity or oil & gas facilities emitting less than 25,000 mtons/year can opt into the regulation, and a baseline other than 2010 can be used, if it’s more representative of a facility’s usual operations.

2 - These requirements would initially apply only to the oil and gas (refineries, processing and treatment plants, and compressor stations) and electricity (coal or gas generating stations) sectors of New Mexico’s economy, and would initially regulate only carbon dioxide (CO2).

3 - The baseline for new electricity sources would be 0.5 mtons per MWh in 2012, and reduced 3% per year. For new oil and gas sources, the baseline would be best available control technology in the first year of operations.

4 - An owner or operator of more than one source emitting GHGs may use excess reductions at one source to comply at a source that it also owns, operates or controls. In addition, sources can petition NMED for early action credit for voluntary emission reductions achieved by the emitter during or after 2005.

5 - Sources may propose the use of New Mexico offsets approved by NMED, or certified by the Climate Action Reserve, to meet their GHG reduction requirements. These offsets could be based on reductions to any greenhouse gas emissions, not just CO2.

6 - Sources may bank excess reductions indefinitely for later use, and may “borrow” (i.e. delay) emission reductions for up to one year with a ten percent penalty.

7 - Full compliance would be excused in any year that the source demonstrates it has spent, over its prior year’s expenditure, $50/mton times 3% of its 2010, or baseline CO2 metric tons on reasonable and effective CO2 mitigation measures. For example, a source emitting 100,000 mtons in 2010 would be excused after it spent $150,000 ($50 x 3000). The $50 limit increases by $1 each year after 2012. Sources may seek variances from the regulations.

8 - During calendar year 2014, NMED would re-examine these regulations and may propose changes to the regulation, in order to have these regulations consistent with what the best science informs should be done to avoid catastrophic climate change.

9 - These regulations would no longer apply to any source whose emissions are capped by a regional or national GHG reduction program, and would sunset in 2020.

10 - Non-compliance would be subject to a penalty and/or other enforcement action, as determined by the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) Secretary.

Climate Change Experts Talk to KSFR’s Radio Café - Get the Podcasts, Get Informed!

2010-08-12T15:07:30Z

Enviro Group Files Rebuttal Technical Testimony in GHG Caps Case

2010-08-10T13:00:29Z

“This regulation is simple and very straightforward, especially compared to proposed federal legislation that is now stalled,” says Bruce Frederick, NMELC Staff Attorney and lead counsel on the case. “The Board is in a position to help prevent catastrophic global warming by adopting our proposed regulations, which could serve as a model for other states or even other countries.”
Opponents of the proposed regulation, including industry and some state legislators, argue that if the Board adopts the new plan it will drive major industry out of the state. Frederick disagrees, “Our opponents exaggerate the impact of the cap. Their profits are affected more by the fluctuating global price of oil and gas, rather than our regulations. An industry’s decision to leave is far more complicated and depends on multiple factors, including the location of oil and gas reserves. Our client’s proposal will actually create jobs; advance the inevitable switch to renewables and make New Mexico a leader in the green energy sector.”

“The long-term health of our economy is contingent on the environment,” states Mariel Nanasi, Senior Policy Advisor for New Energy Economy. “And although industry may tout that this regulation will have astoundingly negative economic impacts, the long-term impacts of corporate degradation to the land will have much broader implications. In essence, the cost of the cap on pollution is about 1% a year - the flip side is that it will spur clean energy development, which means jobs. By acting now to cap carbon, New Mexico will show the world that we care about our people and are open for renewable energy business.”

“The scientific consensus is clear on climate change and global warming,” says Frederick. “Scientists overwhelmingly agree that we have to act soon, and it makes no sense to wait for others to act first.”

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, having the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, has scheduled hearings on the proposed regulation. (Get meeting agenda) The hearings will begin Monday, August 16th, in Santa Fe and will continue all week. The hearings are open to the public and public comment is being accepted between 7 pm and 8 pm every night. Written comments can be sent to the attention of Joyce Medina at NM Environment Department., Runnels Bldg. Rm. 2150 N, 1190 St. Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87505.

Background

www.nmelc.org

INTERVIEWS AND IMAGES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST

Contacts:

Bruce Frederick
Staff Attorney
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
bfrederick@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext. 26

Juana Colón
Communications and Public Education
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
jcolon@nmelc.org
505-989-9022, ext. 22

###

Why Our Environmental Laws Are Failing

2010-08-05T16:50:28Z

Suit Filed to Stop Uranium Exploration at Pandora Mine in La Sal, Utah

2010-07-30T17:04:48Z

The groups also filed a request for a preliminary injunction at the Pandora Mine to stay ground disturbance and construction of the exploration holes and radon vent holes until the case can be fully heard by the federal court.

The citizens groups challenge the granting of a “categorical exclusion” for the projects and requested that the Forest Service develop a full environmental analysis of the projects as part of the proposed expansion of the Pandora Mine and La Sal Complex (Beaver Shaft, La Sal, and Snowball Mines). The “categorical exclusion” process was the same used by the Interior Department in approving the infamous Deepwater Horizon oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. A “categorical exclusion” means that the agency did not conduct any detailed environmental review and provided limited opportunity for public input under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).

The new drilling and radon venting projects are directly tied to Denison’s adjacent Pandora uranium mine. In December 2009 Denison Mines submitted an amended Plan of Operations to the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining. Despite the fact that both Denison and the U.S. Forest Service acknowledge the new drilling and radon venting is connected to the Pandora Mine, the Forest Service approved the new projects without any consideration of the cumulative environmental impacts from the expansion of the Pandora Mine.

The Pandora Mine is operating under an inadequate and outdated Plan of Operations and Environmental Assessment (EA) from 1981. “The Forest Service should not approve any expansion of the mine until there is a fully updated Plan of Operations and EA or Environmental Impact Statement for the Pandora Mine and other Denison mines in La Sal,“ states Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch Program Director.

Radon is vented to the surface from the underground mine operations so that the miners will not breath in the radon gas and be exposed to the short-lived highly radioactive particles that are produced when radon decays. The proposed radon vents would add to the amount of radon gas and radioactive particulates released in the vicinity of the community of La Sal, on the south slope of the La Sal Mountains. In 2009, the amount of radon released from the uranium mines in La Sal jumped from 300 Curies to over 4,500 Curies, according to Denison’s annual reports to the Utah Division of Air Quality. Radon is released from vents near the Beaver Shaft not far from the La Sal Elementary School.

Attorneys representing the plaintiff groups in the litigation are Joro Walker and Robert Dubuc of Western Resource Advocates in Salt Lake City, Eric Jantz of the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Roger Flynn of the Western Mining Action Project, based in Colorado.

Contacts:
Sarah M. Fields, Uranium Watch, 435-210-0166
Harold Shepherd, Center for Water Advocacy, 435-259-5640, 541-377-0960
Eric Jantz, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, 505-989-9022